Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade?

The Pentax K-1 Mark II is a supremely weather-sealed, tough-built full-frame camera with a 36MP stabilized sensor. Billed as more a refinement of its predecessor than a replacement, the K-1 II gains a new hand-held Pixel Shift mode and sees improvements made to its AF Tracking algorithm - it also has a new pre-processor. Unfortunately, our testing reveals this additional processor applies full-time noise reduction to Raw files resulting in inferior image quality to that of its predecessor at higher ISO values.

Key features:

36.2MP full-frame CMOS sensor with no anti-aliasing filter

5-axis sensor-shift image stabilization

100% pentaprism viewfinder with 0.70x magnification

33-point AF system (25 cross-type)

Updated AF Tracking algorithm

New hand-held Pixel Shift mode

Extensive weather-sealing

1/200 sec flash sync speed

14-bit Raw recording (DNG or PEF)

Built-in GPS with electro-magnetic compass and Astrotracer function

4.4 fps continuous shooting (6.5 fps in APS-C crop mode)

1080/30p video

Wi-Fi

The K-1 II faces stiff competition from other full frame models at this price point, many of which out-spec it across the board. But for landscape and adventure shooters, you'd be hard-pressed to find a full frame camera with as many useful and unique features, like built-in GPS, an Astrotracer mode for night sky photography, sensor shift technology, and LED lights on the body (to assist in the dark).

Over the course of several weeks, we've put the K-1 II through its paces in both the field and in our test lab. Read on to see how it performed and how it stacks up as a whole against the competition.

What's new and how it compares

Here's what's new in the K-1 II plus how it compares to existing models from other companies.

"of the 5 Pentax lenses we tested with the K-1 II on our studio scene, the 50mm Macro was the best performer. Lens sample variation is a real thing, which is why we stress that detail assessments should only be made from central/sharp parts of the scene."

When you compare a product's new version especially if the time gap between the previous one is rather short, it's more than obvious that you have to keep the same testing parameters. Doing otherwise, no matter the remarks accompanying your choice, produce to the reader the need to make his/her own assumptions resulting him to be in your place of authority, meaning that the author actually express some inconvenience to say the least. Since the so far approach for this product from the day it launched, created enough "noise", literally and metaphorically, the concept of creating a new misunderstanding, even by stating good intentions, suggest a communicative way of seeing facts and figures which deliberately or not lead to unpleasant perceptions.

The K-I II problem is different, it is RAW blurring (not HP removal), and it affects all shutter speeds, i.e. also daytime or flashlight photography.

I also I guess that Pentax is on a different mission, as it is not about removing hot pixels in long exposures, but possibly cheating noise tests to get a better score at DxO. Which they couldn't hope for without, given that the K-1 II has an "old" sensor (no BSI, no dual-gain technology at pixel amplifier level).

The mission was probably not to help making users' RAWs nicer, if the blurring algorithms are heavy-handed and inferior to Photoshop/Lightroom (or even better denoising software).

But now that the tweak was revealed, I think that DxO will have to refuse to test this camera.

"Unfortunately, the K-1 II has worse image quality than its predecessor.This is due to forced noise reduction to Raw files resulting in less overall detail. At base ISO, the difference is negligible, but as the ISO increases detail loss becomes increasingly noticeable."

A camera, which denoises low-ISO raws, and this even "unprofessionally" with destroying details visibly, is a show-stopper. Then I'd prefer to get a 16 megapixel camera instead, but one with all the raw details preserved ;)

By the way I don't see the loss of detail between k-1 and k-1 II I do see a distinct difference in contrast, which may appear as less detail. It is arbitrary really. I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. You didn't even use the same lens, so we might attribute differences to that. Others have pointed out the focus may be a bit off. Maybe reshoot both scenes with the new D FA 50mm f1.4 when it comes out in a month or two.

Barney: I wrote on another Forum, “Nothing in the Pros and Cons list is untruthful. The review is not as slanted as you think.”

My concern is purely subjective, cannot be expressed, cannot be rebutted and cannot be defended. There has never been, in my experience here, a well-controlled, consistent comparison of Pentax versus its own cameras or Pentax versus another brand. It isn’t only the lens choice, it is the settings choices. I don’t believe one single setting in the K-1II is the same as the K-1. You invite criticism when you pay so little attention to potential faults and conflicts.

The language - the choice of words - in the textual content of DPR Pentax Reviews is always slanted more negatively than the language in Sony and Nikon reviews. It’s infuriating and off-putting.

None of that matters, though. Pentax doesn’t seem to care about DPR’s reviews and doesn’t seem to care what the purported current standard is . They just keep making nice cameras. I keep buying them.

@Barney Britton You asked "Please point out to me where we've downplayed any of the K-1 II's advantages..."

1. You indiscriminately refer to the AF system as having low performance, whereas it really is just the AF-C aspect that is lagging behind the competition. You did the same in the K-1 article until a lot of reader responses led to an adequate (re-)phrasing of the criticism. Let me just point out that the K-1(II) focuses down to EV -3. The Fuji X-H1 only manages EV -1. A DPReview reader won't learn that, will they?

2. While built-in shake reduction is available from Sony and Fuji nowadays (years after Pentax offered it), it is not something you'll get from a Canon/Nikon. Why not list it as a "Pro" in the final list then?

3. On-sensor PDAF no doubt has many advantages, but for those who want a stills camera and manage with 33 AF points just fine, a classic PDAF system is preferable as it avoids the striping issues you find with Sony/Fuji cameras.

4. You state the K-1(II) shots have "good detail" (near base ISO). Why is that only "good" detail, given that there is no Bayer-AA filter to soften the image? Unlike most (all?) cameras without a Bayer-AA filter, the K-1 (II) supports a Bayer-AA filter simulation that avoids moiré in certain situations.

While there are 42MP cameras around, a 36MP sensor without a Bayer-AA filter should still be considered to provide "very good", if not "excellent" detail, no?

5. You refer to the accelerator processing as "full-time" when in reality it only appears to set in after ISO 400. I agree that RAW file manipulation is bad and I hope Ricoh will make this behaviour optional in the future, but there is no need to exaggerate.

dpthoughts:That's the biggest single problem with this review. The K-1 II actually has *superior* detail to the A7R III and D850 in many areas of the image at ISO 6400 and up, especially the fine lines in the lightest part of the etching, along with far less moire. At least a stop better, in fact. The noise is less than the other cameras and the details are preserved. The other cameras do better on the feathers, especially at base ISO, but not when pixel shift is used - and we have no idea how much better the high ISO shots would be with pixel shift since it is only shown at base ISO.

Further to the question of whether or not Pentax cameras have a harder time receiving a favourable review, I notice that the Sony A7R III's "Cons" section does not mention the mandatory RAW processing (aka "star eater").

DPReview had a separate feature about the "star eater" issue, but why is this issue not mentioned in the "Cons" when DPReview is concerned about RAW file integrity?

I suspect that what appears to be a lack of consistency in applying criticism gives some Pentax users a sense of a treatment that could be "fairer" from their perspective.

@silversalts "My concern is purely subjective, cannot be expressed, cannot be rebutted and cannot be defended"

Then may I suggest you do your own due diligence and read (sections of) another review on here, like the Nikon D850 or another DSLR, so that you can rule out that that negative interpretation is caused by your interpretation?

@Ultan, Pentax cheats (denoises) low ISO raws, and yes, this works for scene items which are suitable for denoising: - flat items- strong lines etc, which are easily recognisable by denoisers.

However, the first item I look onto, are the stubbles of the male portrait to the left. Because stubbles look already a bit like noise naturally, this can't be cheated.

And you see, even at ISO 100, with both Pentax bodys and Pentax lenses (but the K-1 II being worse), the stubbles look flat, dull, and lack micro contrast.

Where the D850 and A7rIII look crisp, contrasty and natural.

But I dig that Pentax is not able to make prime lenses, which would be up to Nikon's or Sony's prime lens qualities. This gap starts to show off in DPR test scenes a little, and worsens the matter for Pentax. Within Pentax, you can only choose between outdated, bad primes.

Others like Sigma ART / Tamron SP don't come to Pentax' rescue since many years by now. They gave up all hope for Pentax.

To be honest I have Pentax K1.For me what Pentax did is unacceptable. Even Sony stop doin't RAW "magic" and compression.So hey what did they thought? If I like to shot jpg I will chose other brand. RAW is RAW it should be unprocessed. Need double gain? OK as long as you are not de noising. So K1 II is not an option for me. I think people will go to K1 as it is super cheap now.

I can't help reading into this downgrade as a result of the dumbing down of photography. Ricoh is now aiming at people who want immediate results and buy into this absolute BS of "computational photography": people who want ready, out of the camera results, as they get when shooting with smartphones. This version is for people who either are too stupid to use post-processing software and/or buy a +$2000 camera to share photos on social networks. Given this, what could you expect but a degradation in image quality?Grab a K1 while it's still available. More quality for less money is always a good deal (in my book at least).

It is still a good camera, with some USPs over the other full frame rivals. Hopefully the difference in image quality might be something that Ricoh can deal with via a firmware update (or if it is all down to something on the board, an updated hardware board.)

A week or so ago there was a brief discussion over on PF about the impact of the so-called "accelerator" that is responsible for baking the RAW files in Pentax's most recent DSLRs. A forum member had just replaced his K-3 with a KP (which uses the accelerator) and he noted that while the KP did indeed generate RAW files with less noise, it ultimately lacked the rendition of very fine detail that he was accustomed to with his K-3.

On one hand, it's good to see they really got some improvements in AF capabilities. Hope the (still late) APS-C flagship could be an even greater improvement in this area.

But on the other hand, it's really sad to see that the biggest selling point of the k-1 got worse. Image quality was something Pentax always could be proud of and really tied with competition. But this result is a serious let down.

As a long time pentax user, it's getting harder and harder to justify the loyaltie. And with Fuji getting all the qualities that used to be associated with pentax cameras (plus the AF capabilities), now its time to consider a jump to another brand.

I had Fuji. The pictures are in my Opinion ugly. No RAW can solve that. The lenses aren`t so good, like they tell you. For instance 10-24. dpreview makes wronge messures and shout in the world "the IQ ist worse" and wenn dpreview this saye.... Read others. Dpreview and DXO is for me the upgrade not worth..

Apparently Nikon aren't aware of face detection being "impossible" with OVF, because they have been doing it in their latest cameras.

If you want to be a smartass on the internet, maybe try doing at least a little bit of research on the subject to avoing looking like an idiot. Not comparing a FF camera to a medium format one would help too.

Pentax cameras with the 86k pixel metering sensor do face detection trough the viewfinder using the Auto 27/33 af mode.

That isn't documented by Ricoh but it works, but it's not that effective since it's limited by the number of AF points in the SAFOX 11/12 module. You can't select a face either, and too far faces or if there is an object hiding a part of the face it will not work.

To be clear: with "impossible OVF face detection" I mean "impossible to have an overlay in the eyefinder, like mirrorless, with a square that follows eye or face in a OVF camera"I know that OVF face detection to help focus or exposure is already in camera software.

An overlay in an OVF is doable, but all the information inside it would be from the metering sensor, and this kind of overlay would be far more expensive than our actual ones (could also need a bigger viewfinder housing, but I'm not sure of that point though).

You could even have theoretically focus peaking and highlight warning if your metering sensor resolution & dynamic range matches your sensor (not likely since this kind of sensors are quite small).

The old Nikon D700 has 3D tracking and the focus point indicator does move around just like with Sony eye af. It follows anything you tell it too. It has just 51 points and only center coverage but it is definitely not impossible for a DSLR.

It is an old camera an it uses its focusing sensor to do that but yes follows anything you put it on. In the case of the D700 you need the eye to be big in your frame otherwise it can't track it. Not that i think the D700 is good at tracking eyes but to have a box moving on a subject is possible with OVF at least since 2008.

Surprised by the image result if as you say it is worse. As a long time Pentax user, I don't understand why Ricoh would invest in producing a camera that is inferior to the excellent K1!? People who buy into Pentax are interested mainly in picture quality. We know the K1 isn't the fastest of beasts. So why worsen its key quality?

Whats going on? What a unfair test? The worst IQ? It has visible less noise at Iso 6400 or Iso 12800 than K1, D750 and AR7III. Everbody can see. Look to the black hair of the right woman. An the details are a little bit less like K1, but nearly the same to D750 and AR7 III. This remembers me a little bit to Samsung. No reviews of NX1 or NX500 or to late and then the big Crying then they died. Whats going on with dpreview. What about facts like Colors and Look/Style of the fotos? I dont want pictures form ARIII that looks so artifical like a computer game. This ist IQ too.

With not enough new development the future camera's of Pentax are going to look more and more from the past. It is 2018 and the newest part inside, the accelerator is from 2016. That is not going to sell camera's to new customers.

Everything that has a mirror, is outdated since January 2018. It's not only Pentax. Imagine all the Canon and Nikon DSLR owners of D850, D5, 5DIv and 1Dx whose camera and lenses they will have to write off their balance sheet at fiscal year end 2018 :-)

Fair review ...... time marches on and Pentax has tried a backwards tweak. I know the K1 and DFA 70-200 is an improvement over my K3 and 50-135 in terms of wedding shooting but still miss a few easy shots and shooting my dog at speed is, well..... a joke. K1 is a great rugged stills cameras and AF S capable at smaller apertures with some cool features as stated, but it's horses for courses and this horse has bolted for me..... will continue the sale of my Pentax gear. A7III sounds like my kind of rig............

I found the K-1 was a downgrade from the K-3 for my events, the K-1 has a small buffer, locks up for some time when it need to empty it, the AF points are much bigger so it won't focus on small objects or people far away, and I had many times it won't lock in AF-S and so missed shots.

The image quality is on another level though, especially with the slow af and soft wide open 16-50 f/2.8 vs the super sharp rebadged tamron 24-70 f/2.8, but events with the K-1 as my main camera was always stressful with its small buffer and unpredictable AF.

It if low light performance and motion tracking are very important to you. Believe it or not, Pentax isn't just used for Landscape and still life photography.You can also upgrade the K-1 to K-1 II level for $550.

+Mortal Lion Landscape and still life photography is the strength of the K1. Thats the target market. Sure you can do lots of things with different cameras. I could easily spend $300 on a Canon Rebel and shoot landscapes and still life photography as well.

If you are happy with it, why send it back ? I purchased one also, and am happy with it as well. Gigantic upgrade from my K-30 . I don't have a K-1 v1 to compare it with. I love the much faster AF on the K-1 II .

Like many Pentax users I’m a big fan of landscapes and astrophotography. Default NR is a HUGE no-no in those communities for a reason. If I return my mk2 it will probably be to get a mk1. Waiting on a response to my communications with Pentax though :-)

A bit too late as Fuji has better lenses and building up quickly and a modern mirrorless body. Hope Fuji will add IBIS, better video, better AF (add PDAF) on its forthcoming GFX II with the new 100mp MF sensor. But will see and no much time left for Ricoh/Pentax before moving to a life support.

Maybe. But only to photogs who have never handled a Pentax. Actually, I have been a Pentaxian since I entered digital photography. And I am on the leave. For almost two years now. Mostly due to the poor AF system and lack of affordable and fast focusing glass.But when I compare e.g. Nikon and Sony (yes, very different, I know - it is a difficult decision) as alternatives I always find some features, as negligible they may sound to others, which are important enough to me, not to yet to buy into one of the systems. And I hate Pentax' AF, truly hate it. But I do want to go out canoeing or shooting in the rain without thinking (Sony misses). I want to have in body stabilization (Nikon misses). I want to do interval shooting (the new Sonys miss). And so on. I love that Pentax' cameras are primarily tools. You don't care about tools, you just use them. Unfortunately, though, Pentax tools do not offer the one quality I have come to appreciate more and more: AF.

One of the most keenly-awaited lenses for a while, the new Pentax D FA* 50mm F1.4 is finally here, and we've been using it for a few days. In this article, we're updating our initial impressions on the basis of our recent shooting with the K-1 II.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.